Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Since you're going to be so demanding:


Consciousness is the border of the reality.

This has been known for thousands and thousands years.

Ever heard of the Tao? The Hebrew Bible?




Ok.



So now that you've gotten the confirmitive response to your thread:

where are your comments in my thread?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 11

Can't "things" exist before and after consciousness? Isn't consciousness a specific complex outcome of a system that is real, beyond ourselves? Isn't a consciousness merely a part of the whole?

NKS says for example, that consciousness or will would have been retained because it is the easiest way to predict the outcome of a system. In other words, it is a new way of moving. It invests the random order with a direction, in this case early on one of self-preservation and proliferation, because that is simply the best way to ensure that those things happen. Unconscious, undirected beings, are less efficient in serving their own being than directed beings. Therefore, directed beings are retained.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Originally posted by AdamL
Can't "things" exist before and after consciousness?

Last edited by MikeHelland on 09-07-2007 at 05:46 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 18

Originally posted by MikeHelland
Yes. But a different kind of exist.




But a different kind of real.





Consciousness is like the bridge between your reality and absolute reality.

These are very old teachings in most cultural heritages.

When you pass the bridge, that which was something, becomes nothing. And that which was nothing becomes something.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 11

I guess I don't understand the reason for believing in the primacy of consciousness. The very best argument I read for it was found in "The Physics of Consciousness" but I am not a physicist and so my evaluation of that is not very well informed.

But NKS seems to me to be at least an alternative to that. Because it contends to explain quantum phenomenon in a way that doesn't require consciousness for wave form collapse. It restores the primacy of reality. Or no?

Really confused,

Adam

edit - sorry I didn't see Jason's request...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Originally posted by AdamL

But NKS seems to me to be at least an alternative to that. Because it contends to explain quantum phenomenon in a way that doesn't require consciousness for wave form collapse. It restores the primacy of reality. Or no?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 18

Let me try..

Reality is all what really happens. The only reality is your own "now". Past and future does not really exist. Like yesterday is gone and tomorow will come. How tomorow will look depends for a big part on yourself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

let me help you rudeonline by sharing this quote from Mike Helland with you:

"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."

Mike Helland freely admits his ideas are garbage and thus I would not spend any time answering them.

Happy to save you some trouble...

Last edited by on 01-05-2008 at 06:54 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

If you really felt I was beating a dead horse, you wouldn't be posting in these dead threads.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."
-Mike Helland

option a:
"If you really felt I was beating a dead horse, you wouldn't be posting in these dead threads."

option b:
discredit you on the forum so nobody bothers responding to you ever again on this forum

option best option and my option

Its my automatic Mike Helland response you like it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 2

Motion depends on force.

Moving speed can not surpass force speed.

We accelerate things by electromagnetic force.

EM waves travel at speed C. That's the highest force speed we know so far.

So that's our possible speed limit so far.

Am I have a point?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 18

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=chKxcXMAxss

I made a few animation's.. maybe you get my idea after watching them...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged